ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2017
Condensing embryology teaching for medical students: can it be taught in 2 hours?
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical embryology in 115 minutes - surely not?Advances in medical education and practice · 2019Article
- Enhancing the learning experience of embryology for medical students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
- Condensing embryology teaching: a medical student perspective.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
- Peer-assisted learning: a medical student perspective.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
- Medical students' perspectives on teaching a concise embryology course.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
- Embryology teaching - improving the learning experience.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
- Condensing embryology teaching: alternative perspectives.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmbryology forms a valuable part of the medical school curriculum. However, medical students traditionally struggle with revising embryology and appreciating its relevance. Condensing the teaching content, implementing peer-teaching methods, and increasing clinical focus in curricula have been suggested as methods to improve student engagement.
methodsMedical students at two universities were taught a condensed version of the embryological curriculum in 2 hours by final-year medical students. Students' confidence with the topics covered in the embryological curricula was assessed using anonymized precourse and postcourse questionnaires. Students were asked to further evaluate the quality, delivery, and content of the teaching in the postcourse questionnaire and were given the opportunity to provide written comments. All questions consisted of a statement stem and a five-point Likert scale.
resultsStudents scored significantly higher levels of confidence with embryology after implementation of the course. They found the talk to be effectively delivered, clear, and relevant to their examinations.
conclusionWe have demonstrated that it is possible to design and produce an embryology teaching program that covers an undergraduate embryology curriculum in a chronological systems-based manner in 2 hours with successful results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.